I wonder what the opinion of Mr. Blair himself might be about the matter. An openly Eurosceptic magazine like the Economist should have interviewed him and ask. He could have something interesting to say. This would give him the opportunity to explain how the EU, presided by him, could gain credibility facing the Arab world, Russia, Iran, the Balkans, and even the UK.

The President of the EU should – I said it before – be democratically elected by the citizens of Europe, as the best person for the job, and not just appointed by this or that coalition of interest, be it of bigger, medium or little, old or recent, western or eastern, northern or southern Member States, be it of financial, commercial or military interests.

And, most of all, he shall never, never, never, be chosen by the American Soft Power.

Mr. Blair is quite fit for this job. He has shown extraordinary capabilities to work with other countries as a puppet. He is truly a graceful artist incapable of any sort of independent thought in international matters without our gracious and brotherly guidance. We Americans lovingly support this prospect with monetary and fear mongering brilliance.

Due to Europe's dreadful intolerance for McDonalds and your expiations resistance, and often reason d' entre protests into our Middle East expeditions, I request that Europe submit to a system of American rules/regulations. Only then will we stop feeding money and power to the Blair EU campaign. The first demand is as follows; stop artificially pumping up the value in the Euro so as to purposely hurt the American economy. Second, stop boycotting American goods - you should be so lucky to ingest our genetically toxicant systemically altered food. Third, stop getting so excruciatingly educated so as to protest our subtle propaganda attempts.

I think this candidate should be seriously considered. Only then will he allow us Americans to have true dominance over Europe like we did after world war two.

What else is Mr.Blair doing now?a)highly paid door-opener for X and Y corporation (I forget the details) b)something-whatever envoy for Middle East peace (does anybody trust him? has he shown any progress?)How can he accept to be proposed as figurehead for the EU? Has he no shame?Thank you Buttonwood for stoking the debate!

It's one thing not to follow a number of Euro rules fully (Germany, France..)and another not to participate at all in a few important ones (UK).
Blair's subservience to Bush, his inability to make the right strategic decisions independently and his lack of integrity and honesty make him entirely unsuitable for the job.
Voting for a president should not be based on coniderations of bringing that person's country more fully into the fold.
One also cannot compare Europe's president's job and power with the US, China etc... that's nonsense. The EU is not by any stretch of imagination comparable to the US in terms of political landscape. It's a good thing and the US might want to emulate the EU when it comes to non-concentration of power in the top job.

So, you are recommending the person who lied Britain into its worst foreign policy blunder since Munich; and whose economic policies are now coming to fruition with the first run on a high-street bank in 150 years and a 20% devaluation with more mess to come. The economic rot is not Brown's recent invention but the result of 10 years of mismanagement, during which time Blair was in charge. Blair is a very skillful orator and so fooled most of the people most of the time. Brown has no skill at spin at all and so no one is fooled, but most of the damage was done under Blair.Charlemagne has lost the plot.

Tony Blair’s election of the EU’s president would be a setback for its image around the world. It is like electing Bush as the secretary general of the UN to promote peace around the world. Instead of prosecuting him for war crimes and aggression in Iraq, the EU countries become complicit in this. What an irony!

Has Charlemagne lost his marbles? I left the UK to avoid living in a country that had this horrendous politician in charge. In case anyone is daft enough to listen to Charlemagne I am already scanning the Internet for Swiss propertyLike his namesake Anthony Eden, Anthony Blair led Britain (by deceit) into another disastrous Mid East adventure which has had the sole effect of turning the UK into a terrorist target, purely so that he could become George Bush’s answer to Monica LewinskyTogether with his Enron chancellor they mortgaged the future of the UK by the “off balance sheet” use of Private Finance Initiative which in turn created the feeling that money could grow on trees which can be partly blamed for the insane house price inflation boom (and now bust) of the Labour yearsHis handling of the foot and mouth crisis nearly wiped out the bovine population of the UK.His promotion of faith schools will only increase racial and religious tensionsIt is said that you can judge a politician by his political friends; Blair’s main allies appeared to be a former phalange Aznar who was prepared to lie his way to an election victory and Belusconi about whom I can add nothing.Living in the UK whilst Blair was PM could best be likened to how one imagines it could be at a Christian Boys school where for some reason the teachers pet had been made Head BoyNo Charlemagne a million times no! Let Blair continue to peddle his Christian world view to those in America who are stupid enough to pay to listen to this smooth talking charlatan. Let’s not have a possible war criminal as our President

Like most here I'm flabbergasted that TB is even being considered for this position - only as of yet by the media so it seems. Would he really have time for this what with all the after dinner speeches and the nice little earner at JP Morgan? In any event this is a truly apalling prospect.

I agree with PedroPV.We need a elected president, otherwise the population of Europe will think of him as just another eurocrat.The democratic deficit doesn't exactly get smaller when mostly minority governments in secret decides who is the least offensive to them. Not who is the best choice for the people and Europe.What we need is a new constitution based on the US one where we elect a president by popular vote and it then chooses its cabinet (commision) based on whatever criteria it wants.

So if the new EU president needs to be a "world figure," then he should by always come out of a big member state? And just because Juncker is Luxembourgian he can safely be ignored? No thanks, let's not forget that the vast majority of EU citizens do not live in Germany, France or the UK but in one of the 24 other member states.It should be the other way around, we should look for the people who are the best qualified for the job, and then that job will make them "world figures."

There are pros and cons. On the one hand, the past involvement of Mr. Blair in the Iraq war makes it very unlikely for him to become leader of the EU. On the other hand, that could help Brits to have a better view of the EU and weaken its eurosceptic persistence attitude. Besides that, I do not see why the President of the EU should come from a big Member State. Is it a matter o size? In my view the President of the EU should be directly elected by the citizens of all Member States.

Bildt would probably be a nice choice for foreign commisioner. Has experience and is a "internationalist" or how to put it.Anyway, Blair would be a good choice. But he will never be picked. The UK doesn't want to be in the EU enough, that and the support for the current US president will make it impossible for most European countries to support him.